Theories of international relations

A theory defines a set of thoughts and ideas that try to explain the existence and development
of something.
International relations theory is the study of international relations (IR) from a
theoretical perspective. These theories attempt to provide a conceptual framework
upon which international relations can be analysed. Ole Holsti describes
international relations theories as acting like pairs of coloured sunglasses that allow
the wearer to see only salient events relevant to the theory. The three most
prominent theories are realism, liberalism and constructivism.
International relations theories can be divided into "positivist/rationalist" theories
which focus on a principally state-level analysis, and "post-positivist/reflectivist"
ones which incorporate expanded meanings of security, ranging from class, to
gender, to postcolonial security. Many oftenconflicting ways of thinking exist in IR
theory, including constructivism, institutionalism, Marxism, neo- Gramscianism,
and others. However, two positivist schools of thought are most prevalent: realism
and liberalism.
The following are the theories of International relations.
Realism/ political realism
Realism or political realism has been the dominant theory of international relations
since the conception of the discipline.
The theory claims to rely upon an ancient tradition of thought which includes writers
such as Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hobbes. Early realism can be characterized as a
reaction against interwar idealist thinking. The outbreak of World War II was
seen by realists as evidence of the deficiencies of idealist thinking.
The theory can be explained in the following strands
Statism: Realists believe that nation states are the main actors in international politics. As
such, it is a state-centric theory of international relations. This contrasts with liberal
international relations theories which accommodate roles for
non-state actors and international institutions. This difference
is sometimes expressed by describing a realist world view as
one which sees nation states as billiard balls, liberals would
consider relationships between states to be more of a cobweb.
Survival: Realists believe that the international system is governed by anarchy, meaning that
there is no central authority therefore, international politics is a struggle for power between
self-interested states.
Self-help: Realists believe that no other states can be relied upon to help guarantee the state's
survival.
Assumptions of the theory of realism.
It assumes that nation-states are unitary, geographically based actors in an anarchic
international system with no authority above capable of regulating interactions
between states as no true authoritative world government exists.
Secondly, it assumes that sovereign states, rather than intergovernmental
organizations, non-governmental organizations, or multinational corporations, are
the primary actors in international affairs. Thus, states, as the highest order, are in
competition with one another. As such, a state acts as a rational autonomous
actor in pursuit of its own self-interest with a primary goal to maintain and ensure its
own security and thus its sovereignty and survival.
Realism holds that in pursuit of their interests, states will attempt to amass
resources, and that relations between states are determined by their relative levels of
power. That level of power is in turn determined by the state's military, economic,
and political capabilities.
Classical realists believe that states are inherently aggressive, that territorial
expansion is constrained only by opposing powers, while offensive/defensive realists,
believe that states are obsessed with the security and continuation of the state's
existence. The defensive view can lead to a security dilemma, where increasing one's
own security can bring along greater instability as the opponent builds up its own
arms, making security a zero-sum game where only relative gains can be made.

Neorealism or structural realism/ modern realism

THIS is a development of realism advanced by Kenneth Waltz in Theory of
International Politics.
Waltz's neorealism contends that the effect of structure must be taken into account
in explaining state behaviour. It shapes all foreign policy choices of states in the
international arena. For instance, any disagreement between states derives from lack
of a common power (central authority) to enforce rules and maintain them
constantly. Thus there is constant anarchy in international system that makes it
necessary for states the obtainment of strong weapons in order to guarantee their
survival.
Additionally, in an anarchic system, states with greater power have tendency to
increase its influence further. According to neo-realists, structure is considered
extremely important element in IR and defined twofold as: a) the ordering principle
of the international system which is anarchy, and b) the distribution of capabilities
across units. The theory challenges traditional realism's emphasis on traditional
military power, by characterizing power in terms of the combined capabilities of the
state.

Liberalism
Liberalism holds that state preferences, rather than state capabilities, are the
primary determinant of state behaviour. Unlike realism, where the state is seen as a
unitary actor, liberalism allows for plurality in state actions. Thus, preferences will
vary from state to state, depending on factors such as culture, economic system or
government type. The theory also holds that interaction between states is
not limited to the political/security ("high politics"), but also economic/cultural
("low politics") whether through commercial firms, organizations or individuals.
Thus, instead of an anarchic international system, there are plenty of opportunities
for cooperation and broader notions of power, such as cultural capital (for example,
the influence of films leading to the popularity of the country's culture and creating a
market for its exports worldwide). Another assumption is that absolute gains can be
made through co-operation and interdependence thus peace can be achieved.

Interdependence
The theory was developed by Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, in response to
neorealism. Keohane and Nye's argues that in international politics there are
multiple channels that connect societies exceeding the conventional Westphalian
system of states. This manifests itself in many forms ranging from informal
governmental ties to multinational corporations and organizations. They define their
interstate relations as channels through which governments transact businesses. It is
through these channels that political exchange occurs.
Secondly, Keohane and Nye argue that there is no hierarchy among issues, meaning
that not only is the martial arm of foreign policy not the supreme tool by which to
carry out a state's agenda, but that there are a multitude of different agendas that
come to the forefront. The line between domestic and foreign policy becomes blurred
in this case, as realistically there is no clear agenda in interstate relations.
Finally, the use of military force is not exercised when complex interdependence
prevails. The idea is developed that between countries in which a complex
interdependence exists, the role of the military in resolving disputes is negated.
However, Keohane and Nye go on to state that the role of the military is in fact
important in that "alliance's political and military relations with a rival bloc.

Dependency theory
This is an approach to understanding economic underdevelopment that emphasizes
the putative constraints imposed by the global political and economic order. First
proposed in the late 1950s by the Argentine economist and statesman Raúl Prebisch,
dependency theory gained prominence in the 1960s and ’70s.
According to dependency theory, underdevelopment is mainly caused by the peripheral
position of affected countries in the world economy. Typically, underdeveloped countries
offer cheap labour and raw materials on the world market. These resources are sold to
advanced economies, which have the means to transform them into finished goods.
Underdeveloped countries end up purchasing the finished products at high prices, depleting
the capital they might otherwise devote to upgrading their own productive capacity. The
result is a vicious cycle that perpetuates the division of the world economy between a rich
core and a poor periphery.
The theory argued that the only way out of dependency was the creation of a non-
capitalist (socialist) national economy.

Idealism theory
The Idealist Approach holds that old, ineffective and harmful modes of behaviour
i.e., war, use of force and violence should be abandoned in favour of new ways and
means as determined by knowledge, reason, compassion and self-restraintance.
Idealism stands for improving the course of international relations by eliminating
war, hunger, inequality, tyranny, force, suppression and violence from international
relations. To remove these evils is the objective before humankind. Idealism accepts
the possibility of creating a world free from these evils by depending upon reason,
science and education.
Idealist approach derives strength from the general idea of evolutionary progress in
society and the spirit of liberal idealism which was at the back of American policies,
particularly during the inter-war years.
The Idealist Approach advocates morality as the means for securing the desired
objective of making the world an ideal world. It believes that by following morality
and moral values in their relations, nations can not only secure their own
development, but also can help the world to eliminate war, inequality, despotism,
tyranny, violence and force.
For the idealists, politics is the art of good government and not the art of possible.
Politics provides for the good life and respect for humans, both domestically and
internationally as such Idealism advocates the need for improving relations among
nations by removing the evils present in the international environment.

Main features of idealism

Human nature is essentially good and capable of good deeds in international
relations.
2. Human welfare and advancement of civilization are the concerns of all.
3. Bad human behaviour is the product of bad environment and bad institutions.
4. By reforming the environment, bad human behaviour can be eliminated.
War represents the worst feature of relations.
6. By reforming international relations, war can be and should be eliminated.
7. Global efforts are needed to end war, violence and tyranny from international
relations.
8. International community should work for eliminating such global instruments,
features and practices which lead to war.
International institutions committed to preserve international peace, international
law and order should be developed for securing peace, prosperity and development.

World system and regime theory/ world-systems analysis or the world-

systems perspective

is a multidisciplinary approach to world history and social change which emphasizes

the world-system as the primary unit of social analysis. World-system refers to the
inter-regional and transnational division of labour, which divides the world into core
countries, semi-periphery countries, and the periphery countries. Core countries
focus on higher skill, capital-intensive production, and the rest of the world focuses
on low-skill, labour-intensive production and extraction of raw materials. This
constantly reinforces the dominance of the core countries. Nonetheless, the system
has dynamic characteristics, in part as a result of revolutions in transport technology,
and individual states can gain or lose their core (semi-periphery, periphery) status
over time. This structure is unified by the division of labour. It is a world-economy
rooted in a capitalist economy. For a time, certain countries become the world
hegemon; during the last few centuries, as the world-system has extended
geographically and intensified economically, this status has passed from the
Netherlands, to the United Kingdom and (most recently) to the United States.